Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

> On May 28, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I like this text.

As do I.  Ship it!

Bob

> 
> A
> 
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:15:55AM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Eliot:
>> 
>>> I like the text below modulo one issue: the IANAPLAN proposal did not specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether through the SLA or another side agreement).  I would prefer that we stuck to that approach and not name which agreement the changes go into (SLA or a one-time supplemental agreement).
>> 
>> Ok.
>> 
>> Trying to take this and Ted’s comments into account:
>> 
>> “The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the
>> implementation of the transition of the stewardship.
>> In our case, most of the necessary framework is already
>> in place and implemented in preceding years.
>> 
>> The remaining step is an updated agreement with
>> ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are
>> outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft
>> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt:
>> 
>>   o  The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain.  It
>>      is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties
>>      acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
>> 
>>   o  It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol
>>      parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent
>>      operator(s).  It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
>>      part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
>>      out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
>>      current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
>>      [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
>>      operator(s), should the need arise.  Furthermore, in the event of
>>      a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that
>>      ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to
>>      minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries
>>      or other resources currently located at iana.org.
>> 
>> The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has
>> decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level
>> Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated
>> agreement. They have drafted the update and from our
>> perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated
>> agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially
>> complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination
>> as a final step.
>> 
>> Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions
>> with other parts of the process may bring additional
>> tasks that need to be executed either before or
>> after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs,
>> and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning
>> the treatment of IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust
>> has signalled that it would be willing to do this, if
>> asked. We are awaiting to coordination on this
>> to complete, but see no problem in speedy
>> execution once the decision is made. From our
>> perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition,
>> however.
>> 
>> In addition, the names community has proposed the
>> creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing
>> agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place
>> and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​
>> ransition would take place as described above.  That is
>> our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require
>> further action from the IETF, more work and community
>> agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work
>> cannot be set until the scope is known.”
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan